I\EPUBLlC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBA YAN

Manila

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,Crim. Case No. 28291

-versus-

FREDDIE IMBANG CHU,WILBOURNE SANGHANAN DANDA,

ROSIANA LINDAWAN ADAN,ROSEN DO MARIO ABALLE NAPIGKIT,ALEXANDER SUMOSON CAPIT ANIA,

JOSE DARIO MENDOZA,ROMEO TALADUA LAMAN,

JOSE MASCARINAS CINCO, JR.,PEDRO BALANSAG MISSION, andGLONADEL AGUAS BARREDO,

Accused.

Present:

ONG, J ChairmanHERNANDEZ, J and

JURADO, J.*

PROMULGATED:

j ,fJ/)0Ad.. ~I 0x-------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------.~~

DECISION

Hernandez, J.:

Accused Freddie Illlbang Chu, Wilbourne Sanghanan Danda, I\osiana Lindawan

Adan, Rosendo Mario Aballe Napigkit, Alexander Sumoson Capitania, Jose Dario

Mendoza, Romeo Taladua Laman, Jose Mascarifias Cinco, Jr., Pedro Balansag Mission

and Glonadel Aguas Barredo, then Municipal Mayor, Municipal Vice Mayor, and

Sangguniang Bayan Members of Kabasalan, Zamboanga Sibugay, respectively, stand

charged with violation of Section 3 (f) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly committed as follows:

"That ill May 2003 alld sO/lleti/lle prior or subsequent thereto at the Municipality of

Kabasalall, Province (~f Za/llboallga SilJ/tgay, Philippilles, alld withill tile jurisdictioll of tllis

HOllorable Court, above-Ila/lled accused Freddie IlllbaJlg Gill, tile II the MUllicipal Mayor with

salary grade 27, Wilbourne SWlg/lillla/! Danda, Vice Mayor with salary grade 25, and

/• Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Qr(\er No. 111-2009 dated July 2, 2009.

People vs. Chu. et at.Criminal Case No. 28291Uecision

Page 2 of20x-----------------------------x

Sangguniang Bayan mem/Jcrs with salary grade 24, namely: Rosit1lla Lilldawall Adel1l, Roselldo

Mario Aballe Napigkit, Alexallder Swnosoll Capitania, Jose Daria Melldoza, Romeo Taladua

Lamall, Jose Ml/sC17rizll/s Cinco, Jr., Pedro Balallsag Missioll alld GianI/del Aguas Barreda, all of

tile above MUllicipality, collspiring mzd collfederatillg with aile allother, while ill the performance

of their official jzlllctiollS, committillg the offellse ill relatioll to their office alld taking advalltage of

their official positiollS, did thell alld tllere willfully, unlawfully alld crimillally neglect alld refuse

to act within a reasonable time all the repeated oral alld written request of the heirs of the late

Edmlllldo Morales to ell/zet alld approve the necessary appropriatioll ordillallce Ileeded for the

satisfactioll of the judgmCllt of the Court of Appeals ill CA-G.R. SP No. 54706 entitling tlze heirs

of tile late Edmlllzdo V. lv/orales to claim from the Municipality of Kabasalml of Zamboanga del

Sur (1l0W Zellllbomzga Sibugay) all the salaries alld monetary bellefits due to the late Edmundo V.

Morales, despite the said judgmellt becomillg filial alld exeCllton} 011 August 28, 2002 for the

purpose of discrinzillating agaillst the heirs of Edmlllzdo V. Morales who are the judgmellt obligees

ill the aforesaid case whicll discriminatioll was IIIlderscored when accllsed Freddie I. C/1Il, with the

cOllcurrence of Ilis CO-l/cClised Si/ngglllliallg Bayall members of Kabasall7lz, filed with the Supreme

Court a Petitioll for Certiorari assailing the CA-G.R. SP No. 54706 all July 19, 2004 whell the

assatled decision has 10llg become filial alld executory for almost two (2) years already, alld only

after 1/ case agaillst them was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.ICONTRARY TO LAW."J

Arraigned on November 21, 2005, all the accused entered a plea of not guilty of

the charge against them. The pre-trial conference was conducted on January 18, 2006.

The parties failed to enter into a stipulation or admissions of facts. !,rial began on April

24, 2006.

Summary of Prosecution Evidence

To prove its case, the prosecution marked and offered2 in evidence Exhibits" A"

to "F", "K", "N", "Q", "5" to "Z", "AA", "EB" and "CC", inclusive of sub markings,

which were admittec13 by this Court subject to the appreciation of their probative value.

The prosecution presented witnesses Alsree 1. Lawama, Wilhelm M. Suyco, Abdula S.

Ahmad, Eduardo C. Guinto, and Fernando M. Pena.

I Information filed on 29 June 2005. Records, Volume I, p. I.2 Formal Offer of Exhibits, dated 25 September 2006 and Supplement to the Formal Ofre26 December 2007.3 Resolution dated 26 October 2006 and Resolution dated 16 March 2009.

People vs. Ch/l, et a/.Criminal Case No. 2829\Decision

Page 3 of 20x-----------------------------x

Witness ALSREE I. LAWAMA4

Witness Lawama, Clerk]]] of the Civil Service Commission - Region IX (CSC-RO

IX) and designated as Records Officer in the Legal Services Division, said that the area

of jurisdiction of CSC-RO IX covers the provinces of Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga

del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay and the cities of Dapitan, Dipolog, Pagadian and Isabela.

He said that his office has on file records of notices, resolutions and memoranda

including the full text of Resolution No. 04-00505, the notice of resolution6 showing

when Resolution No. 04-0050 was promulgated, and the Order7 issued by Regional

Director Rogelio Limare directing the municipality to submit proof of the

implementation of the Court of Appeals decision. He identified his signatures in these

documents wherein he certified that they are true copies of the original copies. When

presentee} a document showing that the accused herein questioned the Court of

Appeals decision before the Supreme Court on July 19, 2004, witness Lawama denied

having receJved any copy thereof.

Witness WILHELM M. SUYC08

Witness Suyco, Chief of the Administrative Division and Supervisor of the

Records Section of the Department of Interior and Local Government - Region IX, said

that the area of supervision of DILG Region IX comprises the provinces of Zamboanga

del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte and Zam.boanga Sibugay. He said that his office has on

file records of elected local officials from June 2001 onwards including those of the

Municipality of Kabasalan, Zamboanga Sibugay. He presented these master lists in

court which were marked as Exhibits V and W.

4 TSN, dated 24 April 2006.5 Exhibit F.6 Exhibit E.

7 Exhibit S.

8 TSN, dated 24 July 2006.

People vs. Chll, el £II.Criminal Case No. 28291Decision

Page 4 of 20x-----------------------------x

Witness ABDULA S. AHtvlAD9

Witness Ahmad, Human Resource Management Officer IV of Kabasalan,

testified that the records kept by his office include appointment papers of all local

government employees, leave credits and service records including that of Edmundo V.

Morales1o. According to him, he prepared Morales' service record which contains a

note regarding a computation of salary and other monetary benefits from April 13, 1993

to December 29, 1999 per Decision rendered by c.A. G.R. SP 54706 dated July 18, 2002,

per instruction of accused Chu.

Witness EDUARDO C. GUINTOllJ

Witness Guinto, Municipal Budget Officer of Kabasalan, testified that based on

the records kept by his office, Morales held the position of foreman or kapatas. Witness

Guinto admitted familiarity with accused Clm's signature given the various documents

that go tluough his office. He identified accused Chu's signature in a letter12 wherein

Abdula S. Ahmad requested witness to pl'epare a computation of the salary of Morales

from April 13, 1993 to December 24, 1999 relative to the CA GR SP No. 54706. When

asked when the heirs of Morales were paid, he said that it was only sometime in 2005,

although there was already a computation of the benefits as early as 2003. He said that

in a meeting wherein accLlsed Chu, Atty. Alibutdan (counsel of accused Chu), Abdula S.

Ahmad and witness were present, he heard Atty. Alibutdan explain that the reason for

the delay in payment was because the municipality was awaiting receipt of an official

copy of the Court of Appeals decision.

Witness FERNANDO M. PENA13

Witness Peria, legal counsel of private complainant Excelsa C. Morales, testified

that the latter was his client for whom he prepared a Complaint-Affidavitl4 against the

9 TSN, dated 24 July 2006.10 Exhibit Q.II TSN, dated 31 July 2006.12 Exhibit Y.

13 TSN, dated 8 September 2006.14 Exhibit A.

People vs. Chu, el al.Criminal Case No. 28291Decision

Page 5 of20X ----------------------------- X

accused for violation of RA. No. 3019. He identified the demand letters15 he prepared

dated May 21, 2003 and February 14, 2004 addressed to all the accused. He said that it

was during the pendency of the investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman that the

heirs of Morales were paid the monetary benefits. He admitted that he assisted in the

preparation of the compromise agreement between the municipality and the heirs of

Morales. I-Ie identified his signature in the document.

Summary of Accused Evidence

j

To prove its case, the defense marked and offered16 in evidence Exhibits "l"to

"23", inclu~ive of sub markings, which were admitted17 by this Court subject to the

appreciation of their probative value. The defense presented the testimonies of

witnesses Jose c. Ares, Jr. and Eldwin M. Alibutdan.

Witness JOSE C. ARES, JR.IS

Witness Ares was an agriculture technician of the Municipality of Kabasalan.

Based on a memorandum19 issued by accused Chu, he was reassigned to the Office of

the Municipal Mayor where he worked as liaison officer from September 2, 2001 to

December 31, 2007. Witness claimed that he was familiar with the documents handled

by the Office of the Mayor including the case Edmundo Morales vs. Civil Service

Commission because he was able to read them. He said that accused Chu instructed

him to go to Manila to verify whether there was indeed a decision by the Court of

Appeals on the case of Morales and to get an official copy, if any. He admitted that he

read the judgment part of the copy of the Court of Appeals decision before handing it

over to accused Chu.

15 Exhibits Nand O.

16 Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence, datcd 2 November 2007 and filed on 17 December17 Resolution, dated 17 March 2009.18 TSN, dated 22 August 2007.19 Exhibit 23 (Memorandum, dated I September 200 I).

People vs. Chll, et al.Criminal Case No. 28291

Dccision

Page 6 of 20x-----------------------------x

Witness ELDWIN M. ALIBUTDAN20

Witness Alibutdan testified that the accused consulted him regarding the Court

of Appeals decision involving Morales. He recalled advising them to get a certified h'ue

copy of the Court of Appeals decision as well as other pertinent documents and to

appeal before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, he said that

accused Chu told him about Excelsa Morales' request for amicable settlement. Witness

said that the parties eventually entered into a compromise agreement21 where the

municipality agreed to pay the heirs of Morales on installment basis. Witness said that

the parties also agreed to dismiss the cases against the accused. Witness said that heI

personally prepared a Joint Motion to Dismiss22 the case before the Supreme Court.

This was signed by accused Chu, as Mayor, and Excelsa Morales. Witness explained

that although the Court of Appeals decision was promulgated on 2002, they only filed

the Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court on 2004 since the municipality did

not have a copy of the decision. It only had a machine copy which was attached to the

demand letter of the counsel of Excelsa Morales dated May 21, 2003 requesting the

municipality to appropriate an amount as payment of the monetary benefits of the heirs

of Edmundo Morales.

Facts

For absence without official leave, Alfredo Chu, former Mayor of Kabasalan,

dismissed Edmundo V. Morales, Road Maintenance Foreman, on April 12, 1993.

Morales questioned the dismissal before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office

No. IX (CSRO IX). CSRO IX ruled against Morales and said that he should be dropped

from the rolls effective 12 April 1993. Morales filed an appeal with the cenh'al office of

the Civil Service Commission ("ColTunission"). The Commission dismissed his appeal

for lack of merit.23 He filed a Petition for Review24 with the Court of Appeals. This was

docketed as CA GR SF No. 54706. The Court of Appeals issued a resolution25 directing

20 TSN, dated 12 November 2007.21 Exhibit 15.22 Exhibit 18.

23 Exhibit I (Resolution No. 99167, dated 28 July 1999).24 Exhibit 2 (Petition for Review, dated 17 September 1999).

25 Exhibit 3 (Resolution, dated 29 September 1999).

People vs. Chll, et al.Criminal Case No. 28291Dccision

Page 7 of20x-----------------------------x

Morales to amend his petition by impleading the Commission. In this case26, the

municipality and its officials were never mentioned or impleaded as party-respondents.

But it is worthy to note that the Affidavit of Service and Explanation of the Petition for

Review shows that Alfredo Y. Chu, former Mayor, was furnished a copy of the petition

although the evidence is not clear as to the exact date of receipt.27 The Corrunission

sought the legal representation of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The OSG, in

its Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment, gave an adverse opinion. It said thatJ

Morales was illegally dismissed, thus the Commission filed through its own internal

counsel, a Comment.

While his case was still pending before the Court of Appeals, Edmundo V.

Morales died on 25 December 1999. Excelsa Morales, representing his heirs, substituted

him as petitioner. The year after, or on 2001, the accused won in the elections. They

assumed office for a three-year term.

On July 18, 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision28 in favor of the heirs

of Morales declaring the dismissal from service illegal and entitling the heirs of Morales

to claim from the Municipality of Kabasalan all the salary and monetary benefits due

the late Morales for the period covering April 13, 1993 to December 24, 1999. The Entry

of Judgment29 showed that the Secretary to the Sanggunian of the Municipality of

Kabasalan was furnished a copy of the decisi~.)Ii,although the evidence is not clear as to

the exact date of receipt. The Court of Appeals decision became final and executory on

August 28,2002.

On March 31, 2003, the Human Resource Management Officer (Abdula S.

Ahmad) wrote the Municipal Budget Officer (Eduardo Guinto) a letter30 informing the

latter that accused Chu instructed him to compute the claim of the heirs of Morales

relative to CA GR SP No. 54706. The evidence is not clear though as to how or when

26 CA-GR SP No. 54706.

27 Exhibit CC-12-a (formerly marked as U-12-a).28 Exhibit 4.29 Exhibit 5.

30 Exhibit Y.

I'euple VS. C/l/I. et al.Criminal Case No. 28291

Decision

Page 8 of20x-----------------------------x

accused Chu acquired knowledge of the CA decision. On April 29, 2003, Guinto

submitted the computation to Ahmad.31

On May 21, 2003, after sending two other letters, the heirs of Morales wrote all

the accused a demand letter32 requesting the adoption of an appropriation ordinance to

effect the Court of Appeals decision. This was signed by the counsel of the heirs ofJ

Morales, Atty. Fernando Ivi. Pena. They sent another demand letter on February 14,

2004.33

On January 27, 2004, the Civil Service Commission then issued Resolution No.

040005034 ordering the municipality to execute the Court of Appeals decision in the case

of Morales vs. Civil Service Commission (CA GR SP No. 54706).

Pending execution of the Court of Appeals decision, the heirs of Morales filed on

February 3, 2004, a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against

accused Danda, Mission, Adan, Napigkit, Capitania, Mendoza, Laman, Cinco, Jr. and

Barredo for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.35 This case was docketed as OMB-L-C-

04-0095-B.

On March 5, 2004, the Civil Service Commission (CSRO IX) issued an Order36

directing the municipality, through its Mayor, accused Chu, to submit proof of

implementation of the judgment of the Court of Appeals such as an authenticated copy

of the Disbursement Voucher.

In response to Resolution No. 0400050 and the Order of the Civil Service

Commission, accused Chu wrote a letter3? dated March 31, 2004 explaining why the

municipality cannot execute the Court of Appeals decision. Accused Chu said that

municipality is of the view that the judgment suffered legal infirmities and that the

municipality has decided to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

31 Exhibit P.32 Exhibit N.

33 Exhibit O.

34 Exhibit F.35 Exhibit A.36 Exhibit S.

37 Exhibit 8.

People vs. Chu, et al.Criminal Case No. 28291Decision

Page 9 of20X n X

On June 16, 2004, accused Chu wrote the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals

a letter38, \0 wit:

"Tllollgllmaclline copies of tile DECESION (sic) lias been funzislled to us, but by

mere maclline copies funzislled not by tile Honorable Court of Appeals but by certain

person, tllen, we Cllll1lOt /lct on it or make it tile mere basis of our action. We cannot even

be sure of tile aulllell/icity tllereof because tile MUllicipality of Kabasalan lias not been

officially funzislled certified copy of tile said decision. Tile reasoll maybe is because tile

MUllicipality of Kalmsall11I is Iwt 11 party to tile said case.

In view tllereof; we would like to officially verifij from your good office wlletller or

not tllere is indeed III I official record regarding tile case entitled "EDMUNDO

MORALES vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, CA-GR SP# 54706. If in tile

positive, we would like to secure IlIld be ftmlislled a certified true copy of tile decision,

and otller pertinent dOCllmellts forming part of tile records of tile ClIse."39

On July 6, 2004, the Sangguniang Bayan of Kabasalan issued a Resolution4o

which provided that the members unanimously agreed to question before the Supreme

Court the Court of Appeals judgment involving Morales. On the same date, the heirs of

Morales filed with the Ombudsman a motion41 to include accused Chu as party

respondent in the criminal complaint before the Ombudsman (OMB-L-C-04-0095-B).

Questioning the Court of Appeals decision, the municipality filed a Petition for

Certiorari42 before the Supreme Court on July 19, 2004. This was docketed as G.R. No.

164261 (lvlunicipality of T<abasalan,Province of Zamboanga Sibugay vs. Court of Appeals, et

al.). In the petition, the municipality, represented by accused Chu, assailed the validity

38 Exhibit 9.

39 In response to this letter, the COUl1of Appeals issued a Resolution (Exhibit AA-15) on August 3 I, 2004 directingthe Division Clerk of Court to furnish the accused with a copy of the Decision, Entry of Judgment and Letter ofTransmittal.

40 Exhibit 10 (Resolution No. 072-0706-2004, A Resolution Taking a Legal Step and Elevating to the HonorableSupreme Court the case entitled "Heirs of Edmundo !l40rales vs. Civil Service Commission", and Authorizing theChief Executive to Represent the Municipalit)' of Kabasalan, Calise the Preparation and Sign pi( Records,Documents and Pleadings in Connection Thereto).41 Exhibit D.42 Exhibit I I.

People vs. Chll, et at.Criminal Case No. 28291Decision

Page 10 of20x-----------------------------x

and enforceability of the Court of Appeals decision since it was not included as a party

to the case.

J

As regards the crinlinal case filed by the heirs of Morales with the Ombudsman

(OMB-L-C-Q4-0095-B),the accused filed a Counter-Affidavit43 on August 5, 2004. They

emphasized that they were not made parties in the Court of Appeals decision.

As regards the Petition for Certiorari filed by the municipality (G.R. No. 164261),

the Supreme Court issued a Resolution44 on August 11, 2004. The Supreme Court

required the heirs of Morales to submit a comment to the petition.

On February 1, 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan issued a Resolution45 enacting an

appropriation ordinance46 appropriating an amount of Five hundred thirty-one

thousand three hundred fifty-five and 94/100 (Php 531,355.94) as payment of the

monetary benefits due the heirs of Morales. Prior thereto, the Sangguniang Bayan

issued Resolution No. 040-0316-2004 requesting the Office of the HRMO IV for the

computation of salary and monetary benefits due Morales.

Pending the preliminary investigation (OMB-L-C-04-0095-B), the heirs of Morales

requested the accused that they enter into an amicable settlement to end the

controversy. On February 13, 2005, the municipality and Excelsa Morales, representing

the other heirs of Morales, entered into a Simple Agreement47 and Compromise

Agreement48. They agreed, among others, that the municipality shall pay the heirs

Three hundred thousand pesos (Php 300,000.00) upon the signing of the agreement and

to pay the remaining amount five (5) months from the signing, that the matter be settled

out of court, and that the heirs of Morales withdraw the complaint filed with the Office

of the Ombudsman and/ or any agency.

43 Exhibit 7.

44 Exhibit 12.

45 Exhibit 13 (Resolution No. 018-0201-05).

46 Appropriation Ordinance No. 0 102-2004.47 Exhibit 14.

48 Exhibit 15.

Page II 0[20x-----------------------------x

Fulfilling its part of the agreement, the municipality made its first of three

payments as evidenced by the disbursement voucher49 during the same month. The

heirs of Morales then filed with the Supreme Court a Manifestation5o that the parties

will be submitting a Joint Motion to Dismiss the Petition in view of the said

developn}ent. The parties submitted a Joint Motion to Dismiss51 the case (G.R. No.

164261) before the Supreme Court. The motion contained the signatures of accused

Chu, the C01l11Selof the municipality and Excelsa Morales.

On July 15, 2005, the municipality made the full payment to the heirs of Morales

as shown in the disbursement voucher52. On July 27, 2005, the heirs of Morales

executed an Affidavit of Desistance53 which was however, disregarded by the Office of

the Ombudsman because it still filed on June 29, 2005 an Information charging the

accused for violation of Section 3 (f) of RA No. 3019 before this Court.

On August 8, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution54 granting the joint

Motion to Dismiss filed by the municipality and the heirs of Morales and ruling that the

case (G.R. No. 164261) is considered closed and terminated.

Issue

The issue bears upon the question as to whether or not the accused willfully,

unlawful and criminally neglect and refuse to act within a reasonable time to pay the

heirs of Edmundo V. Morales for the satisfaction of the Court of Appeals decision (CA

GR SP No. 54706) in violation of Section 3 (f) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act.

Ruling

The accused stand charged with the crime of violation of Section 3 (f) of RA 3019.

This provision reads:

49 Exhibit 16.

50 Exhibit 17 (Manifestation, dated 15 May 2005).51 Exhibit 18 (Joint Motion to Dismiss, dated 4 July 2005).52 Exhibit 21.53 Exhibit 22.54 Exhibit 19.

People vs. Chu, et at.Criminal Case No. 28291Decision

Page 12 of20x-----------------------------x

jSecti(J/l 3. Corrupt practices of public ojficers. - III addi tiOll to acts or omissions of public

officers iflready pelllllized by existing law, the followillg shall cOllstitute corrupt practices

ofllllY public officer and are hereby declared to be ulIlalliful:

xxx

f) Neglectillg or refusing, after due demlllld or request, without sufficiellt justification, to

act withill a reasOllllble time all mlY matter pelldillg before him for the purpose of

obtaining, directly or indirectly, from allY persall interested in the matter some pecUlzianj

or material bellefit or advllIltage, or for the purpose of favorillg his own interest or giving

undue advlllzlage ill favor of or discriminating against allY other interested party.

The essential elements constituting this offense are:

1. The offender is a public officer;

2. The said officer has neglected or has refused to act without sufficient

justification after due demand or requ.est was made on him;

3. Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request without the

public officer having acted on the matter pending before him; and

4. Such failure to so act is for the purpose of obtaining, directly or

indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or

material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or

discriminating against another.55

The above elements, as they relate to this case, will be discussed in seriatim.

Whether or not the Accused are Public

Officers

A public officer is defined in the Revised Penal Code as any person who, by

direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, takes

part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippines, or

performs in said Government or in any of its branches, public duties as an employee,

55 Coronado h. Sandiganbayan, 225 SCRA 406 (1993).

People VS. CI1I/, el at.Criminal Case No. 28291Dccision

Page 13 of 20x-----------~-----------------x

j

agent or subordinate official, or of any rank or class.56 He is such an officer as is

required by.law to be elected or appointed, who has a designation or title given to him

by law, and who exercises functions concerning the public, assigned to him by law. 57

It is undisputed that all the accused in this case were all public officers who

discharged administrative or official functions during the time of the issuance58 and

finality59 of the Court of Appeals decision (CA GR SP No. 54706) in favor of the heirs of

Morales until the time of the issuance by the Civil Service Commission of an Order

6°directing accused to submit proof of implementation of the decision. Moreover, it was

sometime in 2003 that the heirs of Morales sent demand letters to the accused hopeful

that the municipality pay them the monetary benefits due the late Edmundo Morales.

During this material period alleged in the Information, accused Chu was the Municipal

Mayor, accused Danda was the Vice-Mayor, and accused Adan, Napigkit, Capitania,

Mendoza, Laman, Cinco, JL, Mission and BaiTedo, were members of the Sangguniang

Bayan, all of the Municipal Government of Kabasalan, Zamboanga Sibugay. The

controversy lies, then, in the second, third and fourth elements of the offense.

Whether or not the refusal to act within

reasonable time was without sufficient

justification after due demand

The law punishes the refusal to act within a reasonable time. Reasonable time

refers to the time that elapsed between the demand or request and the public officer's

neglect or refusal to act.61

In this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA GR SP No. 54706

became final on August 28, 2002.62 It was only on July 19, 2004 that the municipality,

represented by accused Chu, filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the validity or

56 Article 203.5763 A Am. Jur. 2d 666-667.

58 July 18,2002.59 August 28, 2002.60 March 5, 20b4.6\ Coronado vs. Sandiganbayan, 225 SCRA 406 (] 993).62 Exhibit C.

People vs. Chu, et a/.Criminal Case No. 28291Dccision

Page 14 of2C1

x-----------------------------x

legality of the decision. To evaluate whether this inaction or delay was with sufficient

justification, there is a need to examine the events that transpired from 2002 to 2004

First. The evidence shows that it was only upon the receipt of the demand letter that

that accused got hold of a machine copy of the decision.63 This was around May 2003.

Prior to this receipt, there was already action on the part of accused Chu although it did

not yet result to the payment of the heirs of Morales. He instructed the HRMO and

Budget Officer to prepare a computation of the monetary benefits of Morales. This is

evidenced by the letter of the HRMO addressed to the Budget Officer dated March 31,

2003.64

Second. What the accused had was not an official copy, but a machine copy only. The

accused cannot be expected to appropriate an amount from the public funds based on

this document. The accused cannot be faulted for exercising caution in following what

was provided in the decision.

It is expected that public officers and employees should act expeditiously on

matters pending before them. At the same time, they should also exercise caution in

discharging their functions especially when it involves the disbursement of public

funds. Public funds belong to the State or to any political subdivision of the State; more

specifically, taxes, customs duties and moneys raised by operation of law for the

support of the government or for the discharge of its obligations.65 As public officers

entrusted with the money belonging to the State or to their constituents, prudence

dictates that they cannot make disbursements without sufficient basis. Otherwise, they

can be held accountable or responsible for anomalous expenditures.

The Supreme Court has ruled that public servant(s] must exhibit at all times the

highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution mandates that a

public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must at all times be

accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and

63 TSN, dated 12 November 2007.64 Exhibit Y. I

65 Republic vs. Coco fed et al. and Ballares ct ai, Cojuanco, Jr. and the SandiganbayanA.R. Nos. 147062-64.December 14, 2001.

People vs. Chll, et al.

Criminal Casp No. 28291Decision .

Page 15 of20 ;x--------------;--------------x

efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest live.66 These constitutionally

enshrined principles are not mere idealistic sentiments but taken as working standards

by all public officers and employees.

Third. It cannot be concluded that the accused only acted after two years or more from

the time they acquired knowledge of the decision. It was only on January 27, 2004 that

the Civil Service Commission in its Resolution67 directed the municipality to execute the

decision. It was only on March 5, 2004 that the Civil Service Commission Regional

Office IX issued an Order68 directing - the municipality to submit proof of

implementation of the decision. The accused sought the advice of its counsel. About

four months from the issuance of the Order, th~ accused wrote the Clerk of Court of the

Court of Appeals to verify whether there is an official record of CA GR SP. No. 54706.69

In the letter, they also asked for a certified true copy of the decision and other pertinent

documents, if any. It was also during this time that the accused filed a Petition for

Certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the validity of the decision of the Court of

Appeals.7o The Entry of }uclgment71 dated August 28, 2002 shows in the bottom part

that the Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Kabasalan was furnished a copy of the

document. However, the prosecution failed to prove that the addressee indeed

received their copy. The prosecution also failed to prove when this document was

received by the addressee. Likewise, there was no clear evidence as to whether the

accused received a copy of the Court of Appeals decision on 2002.

Moreover, although the Petition for Review72 dated September 17, 1999 filed by

Morales before the Court of Appeals showed that the Mayor of Kabasalan was

furnished a copy of the petition, the evidence does not prove whether it was indeed

received by the Mayor. Assuming arguendo that the Mayor indeed received a copy of

the petition, accused Chu was not yet the Mayor at that time but Alfredo Y. Chu.

66 Civil Service Commission vs. Cortes, G.R. No. 155732, June 3, 2004.67 Exhibit F.68 Exhibit S.

69 Exhibit 9.

70 Exhibit II.

71 Exhibit C.

72 Exhibit 2.

People vs. cAli. el a/.Criminal Case No. 28291Decision

Page 16 of20x-----------------------------x

In its Memorandum, the prosecution argued that the Municipality of Kabasalan

was impleaded as party in the Petition for Review filed by the late Edmundo Morales

before the Court of Appeals since the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was made a

party to it. It said that the OSG was in fact ordered by the Court of Appeals to file its

comment or opposition to the petition. The prosecution invoked Executive Order No.

292, otherwise known as the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, which provides that

the Office of the Solicitor General is the principal law officer and legal defender of the

Government, to wit:

Sec. 34. Organizational Structure - .The Office of the Solicitor General

shall be the independent and autonomous office attached to the Department of

Justice.

The Office of the Solicitor General shall be headed by the Solicitor

General, who is the principal law officer and legal defender of the Govenmlent.

He shall have the authority and responsibility for the exercise of the Office's

mandate and for the discharge of its duties and functions, and shall have

supervision and control over the Office and its constituent units.

xxx

See. 35. Powers and Functions. - The Office of the Solicitor General shall

represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities

and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter

requiring the service of lawyers. When authorized by the President or head of

the office concerned, it shall also represent government owned or controlled

corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of

the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of

lawyers. It shall have the following specific powers and functions:

1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of

Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in

the ASupreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all

civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officerI

thereof in his official capacity is a party.

People vs. Chll, et (/1.Criminal Case No, 28291Uecision

Page 17 of20x-----------------------------x

This Court does not agree with the prosecution. In this case, the Solicitor General

appeared before the Court of Appeals not as a representative of the municipal

government of Kabasalan according to its duties and functions but as representative of

the Civil Service Commission. This is apparent in the decision73 and does not need

further rationalization. The Court of Appeals said:

Tlte respOl/llent CSC sought the legal representation of the Office of the Solicitor General

in this appeal. The OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment in which

it gave its opinion tl1t7tpetitioner Morales was indeed illegally dismissed and prayed that

Ite IJe reinstated to his position. Faced with t!lis adverse opinion from its OWll counsel,

respondent CSC filed through its OWl! intemal counsel a Comment traversing the

contentions of the petitioner as well as the opinion of the OSG.

Judging from the manner the accused discharged their duties, this Court finds

that the hesitation of the accused in the implementation or execution of the Court of

Appeals decision does not amount to the satisfaction of the second and third elements

of Section 3 (f) of RA 3019.

Whether or not the refusal to act was

for the purpose of obtaining, directly

or indirectly, from any person

interested in the matter some

pecuniary or material benefit or

advantage in favor of an interested

party, or discriminating against

another

To warrant a conviction under Section 3 (f) of RA No. 3019, the dereliction must

be for the1purpose of either obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested

in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interestI

party, or for the purpose of discriminating against another interested party.

the existence of anyone of these modes is legally satisfactory to convict

provided that all the other elements of the offense are present.

73 Exhibit 4.

People vs. Clm, et al.Criminal Case No. 28291Dccision

Page 18 of20x-----------------------------x

A close scrutiny of the facts does not show that the inaction or delay of the

accused to act was motivated by any gain or benefit. The prosecution failed to prove

that the accused sought to obtain or obtained any pecuniary or material benefit or

advantage for such inaction or delay. The prosecution also failed to prove that the

inaction was for the purpose of discriminating the heirs of Morales or favoring an

interested party.

The Supreme Court has defined discrimination as the failure to treat all persons

equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favored and those

not favored.74 In this case, there was no showing that there were other persons

similarly placed as Edmundo V. Morales who were given favorable treatment by the

accused.

The claim of the prosecution that the inaction of accused Chu was for the

purpose of discriminating against Morales or his heirs since it was the former's father,

Alfredo <i=llU,who illegaUy dismissed Morales and since there was bad blood between

the parties is unsupported by evidence. No proof was presented by the prosecution to

substantiate 'this contention. The fourth element under the offense charged was not

proven by the prosecution to exist.

It is a well-entrenched principle that conviction of an accused should be based on

evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Before a judgment of conviction may be rendered,

each element of the offense charged must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A

judgment of conviction must rest no less than on hard evidence showing that the

accused, with moral certainty, is guilty of the crime charged. If the evidence falls short

of the reqhired quantum of evidence to produce a conviction - which is proof of guilt

beyond reasonable doubt, a court is then left without discretion and is duty bound to,

render a judgment of acquittal.75

74 Portllgllez vs. GS1S Family Bank (Comsavings Bank), 517 SCRA 309.75 People ys. Legaspi, G.R. No. 117802, April 27,2000.

People vs. Chu, el 01.Criminal Case No. 28291Decision

Page 20 of20x-----------------------------x

AII~~IAIION

Iattest that the COIll:]USiOllSin the above decision were reached in co

case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

GREGORY S. ONGAssociate Justice

Chairman

C~RIIEl.cAIlON

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman'sAttestation, it is hereby celiified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached inconsultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

44i1~f£.~Acting Presiding Justice

People liS. CIIII, et al.Criminal Case No. 28291Dccision

Page 19 of20)C-----------------------------)C

This Court meticulously examined the documentary evidence on record as well

as the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses in order to determine the

presence or absence of every element of the offense charged in the present case.

Considering that not all the elements of Section 3 (f) RA 3019 were established beyond

reasonable doubt and the allegation of conspiracy not adequately shown, this Court

finds the accused not liable for a violation under said provision as alleged in the

Information.

ACCORDINGLY, accused Freddie Imbang Chu, Wilbourne Sanghanan Danda,

Rosiana Lindawan Adan, Rosendo Mario Aballe Napigkit, Alexander Sumoson

Capitania, Jose Dario Mendoza, Romeo Taladua Laman, Jose Mascarifias Cinco, Jr.,

Pedro Balansag Mission and Glonadel Aguas Barredo are acquitted of the offense

charged.

Costs de ojJlcio.

sd ORDERED.

Quezqn City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

Associate justice

WE CONCUR:J

GREGORY S. ONG

Associate Justice

Chairman

ft·~ y£JZROLAND B.JURADO·

Associate Justice

• Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 111-2009 dated July 2, 2009.